Context:
The 23rd Law Commission recently told Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) that the ONOE Bills do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution — particularly federalism and the right of the voter.
Background:
-
- In December 2024, the government introduced two bills — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty‑Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 — collectively referred to as the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bills, aiming to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and State/Union Territory legislatures.
- To examine these bills, the Parliament constituted a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), chaired by MP P. P. Chaudhary.
- In December 2024, the government introduced two bills — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty‑Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 — collectively referred to as the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bills, aiming to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and State/Union Territory legislatures.
Key Positions of the Law Panel / Legal Support for ONOE:
1. Constitutional Validity — Basic Structure Doctrine
-
-
- The Law Commission holds that synchronising elections affects only the timing of elections (frequency/duration), not the right to vote or representation. Thus, the ONOE Bills do not violate the constitutional “basic structure.”
- Accordingly, the panel opines that the amendment does not require ratification by states, as it does not touch the subject matters under Article 368(2)(a)–(e).
- The Law Commission holds that synchronising elections affects only the timing of elections (frequency/duration), not the right to vote or representation. Thus, the ONOE Bills do not violate the constitutional “basic structure.”
-
2. Legislative and Practical Flexibility
-
-
- The Commission notes that the five-year term of legislatures (Articles 83 & 172) is not an absolute or rigid limit; the Constitution itself allows early dissolution or emergency-based extension. Therefore, altering the schedule of elections via a constitutional amendment is legally permissible.
- In its submission to the JPC, the panel argues that the benefits — reduced frequency of polls, savings of time and public resources, stability in governance — outweigh the trade-offs involved in adjusting the electoral calendar.
- The Commission notes that the five-year term of legislatures (Articles 83 & 172) is not an absolute or rigid limit; the Constitution itself allows early dissolution or emergency-based extension. Therefore, altering the schedule of elections via a constitutional amendment is legally permissible.
-
About Simultaneous elections:
Simultaneous elections, popularly referred to as One Nation, One Election (ONOE), denote a system where elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies are held within the same electoral cycle. Importantly, “simultaneous” does not mean voting across India on a single day; elections may still be conducted in multiple phases, as done currently, but all legislatures would have aligned terms.
Historical Context
-
- In India’s first four general election cycles (1952, 1957, 1962, 1967), elections to the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies were held together.
- This synchronisation broke down after 1967 due to:
- Premature dissolutions of the Lok Sabha,
- Frequent collapse of State governments,
- Use of President’s Rule,
leading to electoral cycles drifting apart and resulting in the staggered election system seen today.
- This synchronisation broke down after 1967 due to:
- In India’s first four general election cycles (1952, 1957, 1962, 1967), elections to the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies were held together.
Constitutional Amendments required:
-
- Implementation requires amendments to:
- Articles 83 & 172 (terms of LS and State legislatures),
- Articles 85, 174 (dissolution powers),
- Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law adjustments),
- And enabling provisions for extending/curtailing the terms of legislatures once, to achieve synchronisation.
- Articles 83 & 172 (terms of LS and State legislatures),
- Implementation requires amendments to:
Rationale behind the Proposal of ONOE:
-
- Governance Efficiency: Frequent MCC imposition stalls development work. ONOE reduces administrative interruptions.
- Cost Reduction:Frequent elections require large financial and human resources. A synchronised system significantly reduces expenditure.
- Policy Continuity: Governments can focus on long-term policies instead of being in constant election mode.
- Reduced Political Polarisation: Continuous elections magnify polarisation and populism. ONOE may encourage more stable policy debates.
- Governance Efficiency: Frequent MCC imposition stalls development work. ONOE reduces administrative interruptions.
Concerns and Criticisms:
-
- Federalism Concerns
- Critics argue ONOE undermines:
- States’ legislative autonomy,
- Their right to independent electoral cycles,
- Cooperative federal structure.
- Critics argue ONOE undermines:
- Practical Feasibility
- Frequent imposition of President’s Rule or unstable coalitions could destabilise synchronisation.
- Replacement governments may not always be possible.
- Frequent imposition of President’s Rule or unstable coalitions could destabilise synchronisation.
- Excessive Executive Centralisation
- A unified election could lead to:
- National issues overshadowing local concerns,
- Dominance of national parties at the expense of regional representation.
- A unified election could lead to:
- Logistical & Financial Burden Initially
- Mass procurement of EVMs/VVPATs, security deployments, and administrative preparations require huge upfront investment.
- Mass procurement of EVMs/VVPATs, security deployments, and administrative preparations require huge upfront investment.
- Federalism Concerns
